It's ancient news that "marriage is against nature". We all know this. But if we are going to

[Mike 03]

bother to get married, is it not our obligation to try to abide by the principles of monogamy that foster the concept of marriage?

But please don't lecture us on monogamy and why it doesn't make any sense from the point of Darwin. We all know this. This is Old School.

Knowing this is a fact hasn't changed divorce rates or the percentage of partners who are unfaithful to each other.

But I have to admit, the deluge of posts on this topic is fascinating. This IS an interesting subject, and I'm open, as always, to people who can convince me that I'm wrong. This wouldn't be the first time. LOL

[Deja Q]

1. Darwin was a nerdy little wanker who, if he didn't publish what he wrote, would have been his own

victim. :D


Yes, it is the obligation to abide. For what it is worth to those who foster this concept of marriage.

In theory.

[stray cat]

2. Many of our best actions are against nature - I believe vows married couples make are vows.

and not empty words parroted by a beast.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. Yeah. The whole point of civilization is to control your animal nature.

That's what gets me about these people (almost invariably male) who claim that assholish behaviors are the result of overpowering natural urges. Excuse me, but the urge to defecate is pretty overpowering at times but I don't go around dropping trou and taking dumps whenever and wherever I feel like.

[bkkyosemite]

3. The trick is finding the right partner. If the marriage really connects than why not.

Unfortunately many choose the wrong spouse and it ends up in a divorce.

[ZombieHorde]

4. "our obligation to try to abide by the principles of monogamy"

Does this also hold for couples who mutually decide to have an open marriage. For example: swingers.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

5. Nature never intended humans to fly either

But that hasn't stopped us from inventing various flying machines. Many things we humans create are not "natural" constructs, and marriage is one of those. I don't consider marriage natural, but that hasn't stopped me from enjoying my 13 year marriage of fidelity. It just seems like the decent thing to do not to fuck someone else when I've promised my wife I wouldn't.

[Teaser]

7. there is no such thing as nature

.

[Atman]

8. So, is this thread about "monogamy" or "cheating?"

It's not a very long thread so far, but I can't help but notice how many responses are not about monogamy at all, rather they're about fidelity to ones spouse and adherence to marriage vows.

You can have a great marriage and not be monogamous. But once you start sneaking around and cheating, going against the wishes of your spouse, deceiving, you're, well...sneaking and cheating and deceiving. That has nothing to do with monogamy, that just makes you a deceiver and a cheater.

ON EDIT: Now that I've posted this, I see there are other threads that address this very issue. Good. I hate it when people get all bent out of shape over terminology without bothering to peel back the layers and understand what it is they're actually talking about.

.

[Sanctified]

9. There are many species that are monogamous.

So I am not exactly sure how it's against nature.

[Atman]

11. Be specific. There are "many" species that are monogamous?

How many? Can you name "many?" What percentage of species are monogamous?

Just curious.

.

[Sanctified]

13. Beavers, Otters, Foxes, Wolves, Jackals, Anelopes to name a few and like 90% of birds.

[MedleyMisty]

10. If you can't commit to one person

don't commit to one person. It's not that hard.

I got married because I knew in my soul that I wanted one partner for the rest of my life. I am introverted, very loyal, and very emotional. Sex for me is more a melding of souls than just physically getting off. And I just can't see myself going around casually experiencing something that emotionally intense with multiple people. Hell, even on the rare occasion that I dream about it my dream partner is my husband. (I know, that may be TMI but I wanted to show how deep my monogamy goes.)

I didn't grow up in a religion. Actually, my mother was very insistent that my brother *not* marry his baby momma. She herself would often talk about how she would never get married again after my father died because she liked being able to come and go as she pleased. My indoctrination about sexual matters consisted of her ripping out an article on birth control from Reader's Digest and underlining some of it and making notes and giving it to me to read when I was about 13. She also gave me a lot of Judy Blume books to read, lol.

Oh, and she also made it a point to often tell me that I could come home if a man ever hit me. Her first husband was abusive and her father wouldn't let her come home, so that was really important to her.

When I got married, I emailed her and told her we were going to Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge for the weekend and there were a lot of wedding chapels there. She wrote back "Were you brave enough to get married?" and I said yeah. I didn't change my last name and we don't wear rings.

Anyway - I freely chose monogamy because it is what I want and what fits my personality, and I found someone else who is also introverted and loyal and emotional and he freely chose to commit to me.

I am beginning to understand that maybe some people who grew up in different circumstances may feel forced into it. But still, what's so hard about admitting that and saying "Okay, I messed up and didn't make my own choices and let other people tell me how to live my life and now I realize that I don't like being monogamous." and talking to your partner about it?

I don't care how many partners you have. I just care about being honest, and I think that it does show some deep personality issues if you commit to one person and make them believe that you are being faithful to them and then cheat on them. It shows a basic selfishness and lack of impulse control and lack of an internal locus of control.

And I imagine this is all because of Elizabeth Edwards' new book because Edwards always does seem to bring out the flame wars where people flame monogamous people and try to act as if cheating is good and okay and people who have a problem with it are defective - dude, if Edwards had been honest about preferring multiple partners and if Elizabeth knew that and was okay with it and didn't expect monogamy, then I wouldn't have given a shit. But it does sound like she wanted a monogamous relationship and thought that's what she was getting, and so therefore he was lying to her and hurting her and being selfish and I'm fucking tired of selfish liars running the country.

So essentially I guess I agree with the OP - if you can't handle being monogamous, don't commit to being monogamous. If you do commit to being monogamous for some reason and then find out it's not working for you, be honest about that. Maybe some people do feel pressured into monogamy and don't feel able to freely make their own choices about what kind of relationships they want. Okay -when you figure that out, make your partner aware of that so they can either go "OMG, I also can't take responsibility for my own life and let other people tell me what I want to do and actually I'm not that much for monogamy either." and you can have an open relationship, or they can go "Dude, I wanted monogamy." and leave you and go on their own way while you find partners who don't want monogamy.

I realize that life is generally not that simple, especially if there are kids involved (mine is, though - I found my life partner at 18 and married him when we were 21 and we will never ever have kids). Still, though - is it that hard to be honest and make life decisions based on what you want, not on what "society" or "the church" or the TV or your parents say you should want?

[Rage for Order]

12. Nobody forces anyone to get married

Therefore, I will continue to expect those people who choose to get married and promise to remain faithful to their spouse to do so, and I will consider it to be an ethical lapse on their part when they cheat on their significant other.

[Crunchy Frog]

14. You're wrong. Marriage is really nothing more than pair bonding

in an institutionalized form. There's nothing there that's contrary to Darwinism. Pair bonding is seen in many species, including some of our fellow primates. While no species really practice strict monogamy, most of the pair bonded ones at least are pretty good at not getting caught. Pair bonding does make plenty of Darwinian sense, under certain conditions. You need to read the literature a little more widely.

[Kaleva]

15. A man of nature is an animal